charles_h2

<p>Well Brian, while you're doing all that winking, why don't you read what I said. I never said that platinum prints were better. I said they bring out more detail than silver prints. Many people are totally satisfied with the range of the gelatin silver process. Nor do most people want to take the time required to do alternative processes, which were common a century ago.</p> <p>The threads with the most post on Photo.net alone, have been over what is better. Film vs digital, megapixels, Nikon vs Canon, etc., and the majority of those posters are Americans. I'm sorry if that offends you -:). Peter wrote, "Shadow detail can be brought out <strong>better</strong> and recorded with a lens that has a certain amount of glare, etc." My point was that the printing process is as much a factor.</p>

<p>Peter, I would love to see you achieve the quality of work that Ansel Adams did from his work done in the 1940's with today's coated lens. Even he hasn't been able to do that. None of his modern images even came close.<br> The need to make profits, make photography accessible to more people, and the need for speed, have been some of the causes why the latent image, which was so obvious in turn-of-century prints has diminished. No modern photographic paper can bring out the details of a platinum/palladium print. An expensive scanner will show more detail than a cheap one. Undiluted developer will render an image different than a highly diluted one. The photographic process is a multitude of factors. No one factor determines it. If you change any part of it, you gain on one end, and lose on the other. I'm sure many photographers look at some of the older images, done by our icons, and want to capture the same look or feel, coming to the conclusion that it's the glass, or the film, or the chemistry.</p> <p>I'm not sure why people, especially Americans, need to label everything "better". It doesn't seem to be enough to just enjoy it. We have to sell it. I choose the word "different", not better.</p>

<p>If one started out shooting digital, I see no need to switch to film unless you just want to expand your options for creativity. There is a difference between the two, but it takes the best equipment and knowledge to show that difference. The better the lens, size of the negative, and scanner, the more you see the range of film, and it's unique quality. I also believe that because of the development of digital, there has been no new technology associated with film to produce a better product, whereas digital, is still in its development phase.</p> <p>It is an expensive undertaking (best type of scanner and digital printer), if one is doing it themselves. It can also be expensive to have a lab do the work for you. This however is all relative to your income and the time you want to spend creating images. I like having a negative to print, and I don't mind the time it takes to produce those images, but digital sure gets you there faster........not better.</p>

<p>From my experience, there are too many factors (variables) in photography, to limit things to just one way. Metering for color is different than B/W. Also adjustments need to be made for film vs digital. Whether you point the meter towards the camera or the light source, you have to be aware if your shutter speeds are correct based on the reading. If one shoots film, the exposure is related to how the film is developed, which in the end, compensates for any over or under exposure.</p> <p>The meter is a ballpark instrument. It gets you close, but you have to determine what you do with the reading, then compensate for what you want done with the highlights or the shadows. Some people like high contrast images, some like tons of shadow detail......</p>

<p>Brad<br> Very nice images from a super sweet deal. I love to shoot film. I started out with it, and treasure every medium format camera I've ever touched. The sadest day for photography for me, was when we started concentrating on the monetary value of the equipment, and forgot why it was created.</p> <p>Looking forward to more of your work... </p>

<p>I agree with Tony, that Hector's post was very heart moving.</p> <p>Bill wrote, "I found myself asking, what if I'd had the right equipment to start with? I'm sure many photographers have searched for the best paint brush to create their work. For me, the equipment has it's place, but it's secondary to discovering what is was that I wanted to shoot. I am a people shooter, and I realized this within the first year that I touched a camera. Like Bill, I love the Rolleiflex TLR, but my commercial work has required me to use different cameras for various applications...</p> <p>If I had to do it all again, I would have bought less equipment and more film. Tons of it. I just feel a connection with it.</p><div></div>

<p>Sarah</p> <p>Thanks for pointing that out. I tried it with flour, but I liked the texture and color of the grain better. The white flour stood out a little too much, taking my eye away from the man. It was fun working on it. That is the objective right?</p>

<p>Had to re-size the image</p><div></div>

<p>I guess it's irony that some photos should be paintings, and some paintings should be photographs. I felt this was more of a painting, so that was my goal. I was on the same page to darken the background, and bring out the man and his machine, but also to show that the machine works........</p>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>Just a little tweak here and there. Toned down the original colors, added a little blue, some sharpening, texture, and finally some blur.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Paul<br /> How's life down under?</p> <p>All the major film developers work wonders, if you apply their strengths and get around their weakness. Rodinal is an incredible developer, and yes, it will work with just about any film. It yields very sharp images, and minimal grain if you remember that it is a speed decreasing developer, and is susceptible to over agitation. In other words, it works best if you pull the film. Over-expose and under develop, and be careful not to over agitate. With this method you will get beautiful mid-tones. A look that only Rodinal can produce (this is <strong>not</strong> a claim that it is the best developer). It is the quality that makes aminophenol (the developing agent in Rodinal) unique. There are photographers that have used and produced excellent images with all the major film developers on the market, and a few have created their own. I don't believe in a magic bullet, just a good aim.<br /> The attached images were shot with Tri-X 120, and diluted 1:50</p><div></div>

<p>Nice camera and images John. Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>+1 for Jeff's comments</p>

<p>Thanks Andy, Les, and Mike. Look forward to seeing some of your images.</p> <p>For me, lighting and design are the main factors in my approach to an image. I don't like taking my eye off the subject when shooting. In medium format, the rollei tlr and the hasselblad were designed for just that. I know many photographers work just fine, with the newer designs, but I believe this is why they became the standard for many pros and hobbyist. My love of Irving Penn's work also helped my selection.. </p>

<p>Wow! Really nice work <strong>Kent</strong>, <strong>Bruce</strong>, <strong>Gene</strong>, and <strong>Rick</strong>.</p> <p>Rick, I definitely know the limitations of a fixed lens camera, especially for commercial work. You, and many of the other frequent posters here have worked with so many different cameras, I was just curious on which one fits best. I have never thought that the Rollei was the best camera, it just speaks to me. If I had to get rid of all the others, it's the one I'd keep. Plus a million rolls of verichrome pan film. I really like your work.</p> <p>OK. After seeing so many wonderful examples, we should start a new forum on camera trading.....</p>

<p>John Seaman: Thanks. Would love to see some of those Rollei images. There are so many great cameras out there. I chose this forum because most of the shooters here have been through the many different formats that photography has to offer...</p> <p>James Dainis: That's what I'm talking about. The camera that makes you feel that way.</p>

<p>image 8</p><div></div>

<p>image 7</p><div></div>

<p>image 6</p><div></div>

<p>image 5</p><div></div>

<p>image 4</p><div></div>

<p>image</p><div></div>

<p>the facts</p><div></div>

<p>Queen Anne</p>